I am MI5 and I am still watching YOU!
We have a list of secret agents, we are all watching you
BitterAnklo = Japan agent in Osaka
lt Lee - CCP PLA type from China and North Carolina
BaldEagle - Hawaii office to Singa****e
Supertech= Korea to Texas field office
Abian Chen= Taiwan to NY
L. Alpert = Jewish plant/ in CT.
Susan Cohen our head UK MI5 office head.
YES we are all watching YOU!
<ivevif@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:ih0711260852249087@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> MI5 Persecution Update: Friday. 30 April, 1999
>
> If You. Intend To Reply, Please Read This
> Please..... keep your response to one page!. Faxes over a page or two
will
> be deleted without. being read.
>
> Somewhere between 0 and. 100%
>
> The last few days there have. been no clear recordable instances of
> abuse. However, while. travelling on the Underground, while walking
around
> near my home and going to friends homes, I am constantly. troubled by
> thoughts that. those people over there might be about to get at me; that
> the couple sitting in the. opposite seats laughing are in fact laughing
at
> me; et. cetera, et cetera.
>
> A comment by a. scientist to the BSE inquiry sticks in my mind. He
> described the possible scale. of the epidemic as "between 0% and 100%".
It
> might not be happening, it. might not happen at all, to any discernable
> degree.... or it might be total. Without. clear recording, which seems
to
> have become impossible. the last couple of weeks, there is no way of
> knowing whether the harassment really. is continuing, whether we have
> entered a tem****ary hiatus, or whether perhaps it has perhaps stopped.
for
> now.
>
> But. for the time being I think there arent any reasons to dicontinue
> these
> faxes. I only re-started them six. weeks ago in response to a resumption
> of
> MI5 harassment; and I. think I will need to be more convinced of absence
> of
> persecution before I discontinue. my complaints.
>
> The Newscasters. are still watching
>
> In the last. few weeks there have been at least a couple of fairly overt
> instances of "interactive watching" by newscasters.. I re****ted this in
a
> previous "MI5. Persecution Update".
>
> These instances. are really very rare compared to 1990-91, when there
were
> many dozens of such occurrences. Undoubtedly the reduction. is due to my
> practice of videotaping everything I see. Recently I had the.
op****tunity
> of showing this years "happenings". (Jon Snow/Nicholas Witchell) to my
> psychiatrist, and he agreed that in. both cases the newscasters were
> expressing. merriment without visible cause, and that objectively it
might
> be possible for my claims to be true - although of. course other people
> re****ted similar thoughts to him, and this thinking is. usually a
symptom
> of. illness.
>
> Read About the MI5 Persecution on the. World Wide Web
>
> The March 1998 issue (number 42) of .net Magazine reviews the. website
> describing it as an "excellent site". Since. August 11, 1996 over 50,000
> people have. browsed this website.
>
> You are. encouraged to read the web pages which include
>
> a FAQ (frequently asked questions) section outlining the. nature of the
> persecutors, their methods. of harassment through the media, people at
> work
> and among. the general public
>
> an evidence section, which carries audio and video. clips of media and
> workplace harassment, rated according to how directly I think they refer
> to. me
>
> objective descriptions of the state. security agencies involved
>
> scanned texts of the complaints I have made to media. and state security
> agencies. involved
>
> posts which have been made to. netnews over the last four years on this
> topic
>
> Keith Hill MP (Labour - Streatham), my. elected representative, as ever
> refuses to. help.
>
> MI5 Waste Taxpayer. Millions on Pointless Hate-Campaign
>
> Recently I. was talking to an independent observer about the nature and
> purpose of the. perceived campaign of persecution against me. The person
I
> spoke to,. a highly intelligent man, said he was struck by the utter
> pointlessness of the perceived campaign against. me. He also said that,
if
> my theories were in fact true, many people would have to be. involved,
in
> the surveillance itself,. and in the technical side of the delivery of
> information from my home to TV studios for example, if. the "interactive
> watching" were happening as. described. He voiced these thoughts without
> any prompting from me; but both I and other observers had arrived. at
> pretty much the same conclusions, some years. ago.
>
> I saw a team of four men at Toronto Air****t in. 1993
>
> To carry. out the surveillance alone, full-time, would employ four or
five
> men, or their equivalent in terms of man-hours. Each man would "work".
an
> eight-hour ****ft, so you would need. at least three men doing the
> surveillance, plus a connecting link / manager. An. indicator that this
> estimate is correct arrived in 1993, when. I was accosted by one of a
> group
> of four men at Toronto Air****t; he said, laughing, "if he tries to. run
> away well find him". Plainly these. were the men who had been involved
in
> the intrusive surveillance. of me for the preceding three years.
>
> On other occasions, I have seen the same man. on two or three occasions.
> On
> one such occasion, at. Ottawas Civic Hospital in November 1996; he gave
> his
> name to the doctor. as "Alan Holdsworth" or some such; my hearing is not
> very good sometimes and I am. not sure of the surname, although I am
sure
> "Alan" was his first name. I saw exactly the same man again in. Ottawa,
at
> the air****t, in July 1998. Obviously,. other people must be "working"
with
> this person; he would not. be the sole agent employed in this case.
>
> Usenet readers views on. the Cost to MI5 of Running the Campaign
>
> Here's what a couple of other people on internet. newsgroups / Usenet
> (uk.misc) had to say regarding the. cost of running such an operation...
>
> PO: >Have some sense, grow up and smell reality.. What you are talking
> about
> PO: >would take loads of planning, tens of thousands of pounds and lots.
> of
> PO: >people involved in. the planning, execution and maintenance of it.
> You
> PO: >must have a very high opinion of yourself to. think you are worth
it.
>
> and......
>
> PM: >But why? And. why you? Do you realize how much it would cost to
keep
> PM: >one person under continuous surveillance. for five years? Think
about
> PM:. >all the man/hours. Say they _just_ allocated a two man team and a
> PM: >supervisor. OK., Supervisor's salary, say, #30,000 a year. Two.
men,
> PM: >#20,000 a year each. But they'd need to work in ****fts --. so it
> would
> PM: >be six men at #20,000 (which with on-costs would work. out at more
> like
> PM: >#30,000 to. the employer.)
> PM:. >
> PM:. >So, we're talking #30,000 x 6. #180,000. plus say, #40,000 for the
> PM: >supervisor. #220,000. Then you've got. the hardware involved. And
> PM: >any transcription that needs doing. You don't think. the 'Big Boss'
> PM: >would listen to hours and hours of tapes, do. you.
> PM:. >
> PM: >So, all in all, you couldn't actually do the job for much less.
than
> PM:. >a quarter million a year. Over five years. What are you doing that
> makes
> PM: >it worth the while of. the state to spend over one and a quarter
> million
> PM:. >on you?
>
> Those are pretty much the sort. of calculations that went through my
head
> once I stopped to consider what it must be costing. them to run this
> operation. At the. very least, a quarter million a year - and probably
> much
> more, given the intrusive and. human-resource-intensive methods
> employed. Times nine years. Equals well over two. million pounds - and
> probably much, much. more.
>
> Its wasteful. for someone with my skills to be unemployed
>
> The wastefulness. of the MI5 campaign against me is not just that of
> futile
> expenditure on their side. It is also. extremely wasteful for someone
with
> my talents to be unemployed and on. a disability pension. I am highly
> qualified in numerate disciplines,. yet am unable to work, specifically
> because. of the MI5 hate-campaign against me. It is a terrible waste of
> resources for a supposedly efficient economy. like that of the UK to be
> squandering the talents. of a skilled and capable worker.
>
> I made every effort to remain in employment. for as long as I could, but
> ultimately I was. defeated by MI5s employment of massive resources
> specifically targeted on my workplaces with the sole aim of. seeing me
> evicted from those workplaces. You might expect this sort. of behaviour
> from the Stasi or. some other secret police force in a communist country
> where labour. is cheap, and the governments aim on seeing its citizens
> confined; but. for a supposedly free and efficient economy like
Britains,
> the wastefulness resulting both directly and indirectly. from the
Security
> Services activities is simply criminal, and should never be. allowed.
>
> The international dimension means the costs are multiplied many. times
> overoer. had any sense, then they have surely taken leave of them over
the
> last. nine years.
>
> Four. years of persecution in Canada
>
> The persecution re-started within less than. five minutes of my arrival
in
> Canada, as do***ented above, and in. the "frequently asked
> questions" article on. the website. The words, "if he tries to run away
> well find. him" spoken by one of the harassers at Toronto Air****t are
now
> imprinted on. my mind.
>
> A year later I emigrated to Canada,. intending to find a job and settle
> there, hoping that MI5s interest in. me might dim with time. I did
manage
> to find. work there, but my hopes of avoiding Security Service interest
> were. ground into dust. As detailed above, I saw the same man in
November
> 1996 and July 1998, both times in Ottawa. Apart. from these encounters,
> there were numerous incidents between 1994 and 1998 of harassment, of.
an
> identical nature and in. most cases using identical words to what had
> occurred in the UK. It. became quite clear to me that the permanent
> surveillance and harassment operation which MI5 had subjected. me to in
> England was being. continued.
>
> For a team of four or five men to be employed overseas. must cost a lot
> more than if they operate in their home country. And for MI5. to
continue
> the operation for a period of over four years, continuously, must. cost
> many. hundreds of thousands of pounds. This confirms my belief that the
> state is. funding the campaign against mehat the Security Service
receives
> current annual funding of #160M. Divided by. 1850 staff, works out at
> #86,000. But the unit annual cost of each "watcher" must. be much higher
> than. this, especially given the frequently mobile and overseas nature
of
> their actions of the last few years. A very conservative figure might.
be
> a
> little over #100,000 pa for each of. a team of five people, or half a
> million pounds per year. For nine years, so far. So. the most
conservative
> estimate of the surveillance element alone is perhaps four or. five
> million
> pounds since. 1990.
>
> This. guesstimate is of course theoretical - I am not privy to inside
> details of how MI5 split their funding. But to take. some other
examples,
> the. cost of a US counter-surveillance specialist per day is USD
> 5,000. Even if the agents permanently assigned to. me are not of this
> calibre - even. if they employ specialists when difficult work planting
> bugs etc is encountered - their. salary and sup****t costs must still be
> very high. The. individual agents are doing well for themselves as they
> are
> well-paid to exercise psychopathic instincts which in any. sane society
> would see them in prison; but the taxpayers who. must fund this terribly
> wasteful exercise are being "done" out of hundreds of thousands of.
pounds
> each. year.
>
> It must be emphasised that the. above estimates are highly
> conservative. Besides the surveillance. operation, it must carry a high
> cost in man-hours to propagate covert slanders through the population;.
to
> setup. and maintain the "interactive watching" links to TV and radio
> stations, which these organisations. continue desparately to "lie and
> deny"; and to induce antipathy in co-workers. which would not otherwise
> exist.
>
> Why they are wasting Millions of. Pounds on a "Nobody from South London"
>
> As remarked in the prologue to this article, it is really. most
> extraordinary that the Security Service spends a chunk. of its budget,
> every year for nine years. so far, on a meaningless campaign against a
> "nobody from South London". That they are spending such a. large amount
of
> money. has been confirmed to me on several occasions, usually by oblique
> references to "its costing. this country millions". The supposed
> "logic" behind the persecution is that MI5 wish. to avoid their
harassment
> of me, and the involvement of the UK media, to be made. public; yet as
the
> reader will appreciate. that is a circular argument, "theyre doing it
> because they want to. keep it secret and avoid humiliation for
themselves
> and their country" begs the question, "why did they start doing. it in
the
> first place?", to which in truth I myself do not. know the answer.
>
> Plainly MI5. with its rich budget can afford half a million pounds a
year
> to waste on. a "nobody from South London". Some time ago I was talking
to
> a
> British surveillance professional on Compuserve who. told me "this work
> costs a lot of money and is usally because the person I am following.
has
> done something (usually criminal) to warrant all. this money and time
> being
> spent." Yet in this particular case it. is plainly not the "victims
> fault". that the harassment is taking place. The hate-campaign against
me
> is completely the creation of the obsessive psychologies of. the MI5
> agents
> who. have made themselves my persecutors; it is obviously a
> "personal" campaign for them, and. for years they misuse taxpayer
funding
> to feed their insane, unnatural and fixated. fantasies.
>
> 2766
>
|
